Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BLT cocktail

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Courcelles 17:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BLT cocktail

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

~~This really, really seems to be completely non-notable.~~ The Potato Hose ↘ 07:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. I still don't personally believe that this is anything other than a brief bit of pop-culture ephemera, but Cirt seems to have found enough sources to satisfy WP:N. The Potato Hose ↘ 16:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, — Cirt (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not for things someone WP:MADEUP when drunk one evening. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Haha, based on the sources in the article [1] [2] I think this exists, but the question of notability is another matter. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are plenty of other good secondary sources for this topic. — Cirt (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Name two. The Potato Hose ↘ 16:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can easily find them in a matter of seconds in news and book sources, here: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - None of which confirm notability, only existence which is not the same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Potato Hose (talk • contribs) 18:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - ~~No. Wrong.~~ Per WP:NOTE, they confirm both. Have a great day, — Cirt (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        You're just charming, aren't you? The Potato Hose ↘ 01:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Not sure why you're ~~choosing to engage in such vitriol~~ in favor of removing material like this which has received coverage in multiple secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 02:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        You're right, my tone was inappropriate, I apologize. — Cirt (talk) 03:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Oh wait, you only ever seem to vote keep, with boilerplate. Never mind. The Potato Hose ↘ 01:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Associated Press: A Meaty Drink: Bacon, BLT Cocktails Quench Hunger, Thirst. Articles whose very title is about this subject, itself. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Still waiting for evidence that this is notable, as in covered in a widespread way. I am not disputing the existence of such a cocktail. The Potato Hose ↘ 01:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Yet another source with the very subject of this article in its title: Please see: "Make that a bacon vodka, on the rocks‎", Detroit Free Press, August 30, 2009. — Cirt (talk) 02:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quality improvement in progress: Please note that a quality improvement project is now in progress on this article. I will do additional research for secondary sources. I will then use those secondary sources to expand and improve the quality of this article. Please be patient. I again encourage those coming to this AFD to take a look through sources at (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). And also at :(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). There is a good amount of secondary source coverage for this. Thank you for your patience, — Cirt (talk) 02:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 08:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 08:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 08:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 08:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 08:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 08:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 08:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Okay, I've gone through and improved the quality of the article to a version with much better sourcing than previous. The article now includes material referenced to sixteen (16) secondary sources with an additional two (2) as entries in the Further reading sect. I've also gone ahead and expanded the lede/intro sect, per WP:LEAD, to include a summary of the article's main body text. Hopefully this is satisfactory to avoid being disappeared off Wikipedia. Thank you for your consideration, — Cirt (talk) 08:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Enough reliable sources for notability. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 12:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of quality sources. Nice work Cirt. Grey Wanderer (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourced and notable enough. --Lockley (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though with a little roll of the eyes...If we have articles called Death threat and Vehicle door, plus an article for each integer up to who-knows-how-many, we can certainly have an article on a cocktail, even if it's not widely known (or widely appealing). In an ideal Wikipedia, I'd say this cocktail is more a candidate for a small paragraph in an article on novelty cocktails. Eric ^talk 15:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.